worshipper of Ormuzd, who gave co-ordinated powers to Ahriman.
The “adversary”, the opposer of God and man, was the main idea in the mind of
the Jew, when he thought of an evil agency as personified; not the one who
makes calumnious accusations, not the “slanderer”, but the power which, within
the limits allowed him by the Most High, makes for unrighteousness.
But the characteristic
which penetrated most deeply into the national life of the post-exilic people
was the reverence and study bestowed on the Law, viewed as an absolute rule of
conduct, and an inexhaustible storehouse of precepts applicable without
exception to every circumstance of life. Ewald, comparing the working out of
this conception in detail with the elaborate literary structures of the
schoolmen and with other modern labors of a juristic character, points out that
“the difference between the legal movement over which Ezra presided and its
modern parallels lies chiefly in this simple fact, that the former found in
every ancient law which it worked up the immediate presence of the holy itself,
and therefore treated it with the utmost awe and the most scrupulous care, and
with admirable patience made the most strenuous efforts possible to secure the
legal obedience, and, by that path, the outward sanctity of man”.
But this
identification, or close conformity, of the things which were required by the
Law, and holiness of life, soon worked out in many instances to the natural
result of contentment with the careful discharge of duty, ceremonial and other,
and failure to recognize the vital power derived from unity with the Divine
source of sanctity. Moreover, when the yoke of the Law, thus interpreted,
became over burdensome to the individual, recourse was had, especially among
the higher ranks, to various devices by which an equivalent in the shape of
money or other offerings was held as a release in full from more irksome
demands.
It is very significant,
as Ewald shows, that, as cere¬monial developed, and ritual holiness became more
and more emphasized in the national life, the Divine author of the Law came to
be looked upon as further and further removed from direct spiritual contact or
converse with His people, so that the highest of His names became completely
disused, and for 'Jehovah' was invariably substituted in utterance one of the
common titles, Adonai, El, Elohim, Heaven, or later, the simple expression, The
Name.
The prophetic period of
Israel’s history had been fraught with deep benefit to their spiritual life.
Moral, as contrasted with mere ceremonial, holiness had been powerfully
enforced upon the nation before, and even after, the Exile. But when the last
of the prophets had protested against the sins of the ecclesiastical leaders of
the time, and had pointed once more to the immutable bases of morality, this teaching
more and more lost its hold and was practically to a large extent forgotten,
while formality in ritual established itself as the all-sufficient substitute.
Comments such as the
above on the religious and social condition of the people during the period
which followed the Return are necessarily of a somewhat impersonal character.
When once the generation which saw the labors of Ezra and Nehemiah had passed
away, there is a singular lack of any conspicuous figure.
We may assume that the
Persian power kept up at least a nominal control through its governor, who
seems for a while at any rate to have lived within Jerusalem. It is probable,
however, that the Jews were left pretty much to themselves as regards
administrative functions. Their position between two rival powers like Persia
and Egypt must have exposed them to occasional depredations from contending
forces. At the same time the condition of the people themselves, as portrayed
for us by Malachi, was in many respects lamentable. The enthusiasm which marked
the return from the Captivity had evidently died away after a very few
generations. The priests were